STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

10(5) of the Act, the Addl.\nCIT (TDS) levied the aforesaid penalty u/s 271C of the Act. The relevant\nportion of the aforesaid order dated 19/09/2023 is reproduced as under:\n\n1. In this case, A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) dated 18.03.2023 and notice u/s\n201(1)/201(1A) dated 23.03.2023 for F.Y. 2016-17 for verification

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

10(5) of the Act, the Addl.\nCIT (TDS) levied the aforesaid penalty u/s 271C of the Act. The relevant\nportion of the aforesaid order dated 19/09/2023 is reproduced as under:\n\n1. In this case, A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) dated 18.03.2023 and notice u/s\n201(1)/201(1A) dated 23.03.2023 for F.Y. 2016-17 for verification

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ( ₹) 1 106/LKW/2023 2008-09 4,75,335 2 105/LKW/2023 2009-10 1,19,751 3 104/LKW/2023 2010-11 8,30,213 4 103/LKW/2023 2011-12 6,50,983 5 102/LKW/2023 2012-13 48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ( ₹) 1 106/LKW/2023 2008-09 4,75,335 2 105/LKW/2023 2009-10 1,19,751 3 104/LKW/2023 2010-11 8,30,213 4 103/LKW/2023 2011-12 6,50,983 5 102/LKW/2023 2012-13 48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ( ₹) 1 106/LKW/2023 2008-09 4,75,335 2 105/LKW/2023 2009-10 1,19,751 3 104/LKW/2023 2010-11 8,30,213 4 103/LKW/2023 2011-12 6,50,983 5 102/LKW/2023 2012-13 48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ( ₹) 1 106/LKW/2023 2008-09 4,75,335 2 105/LKW/2023 2009-10 1,19,751 3 104/LKW/2023 2010-11 8,30,213 4 103/LKW/2023 2011-12 6,50,983 5 102/LKW/2023 2012-13 48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

100% of TDS liability spelt-out in SCN as; Sr ITA No Asstt Year Penalty Levied ( ₹) 1 106/LKW/2023 2008-09 4,75,335 2 105/LKW/2023 2009-10 1,19,751 3 104/LKW/2023 2010-11 8,30,213 4 103/LKW/2023 2011-12 6,50,983 5 102/LKW/2023 2012-13 48,253 ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 8 Finance & Accounts Officer DIOS

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

100,024)\n3\nGANDAK\n1505976\n5175221\n(3,669,245)\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR\n3159205\n3560606\n(401,401)\n5\nKACHWA\n4034671\n4722044\n(687,373)\nTotal\n12606771\n17925917\n(5,319,146)\n\nAs a result of computing the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

100,024)\n3\nGANDAK\n1505976\n5175221\n(3,669,245)\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR 3159205\n3560606\n(401,401)\n5\nKACHWA\n4034671\n4722044\n(687,373)\nTotal\n12606771\n17925917\n(5,319,146)\nAs a result of computing the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

100%.\nDoubtful and sub-standard assets are provided for at rates ranging from 10 to 50%.\nThe ld. AO opined that this classification did not mean that the debts had become bad\nor irrecoverable. He, therefore, held that such accounting entries were not\nnecessarily deductible in computing the taxable income of an assessee. He placed\nreliance for this proposition

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

10,76,100/- and fees receipts amounting to Rs.52,75,750/-. As regards\nthe other heads of extra fee charged, the arguments given by the Ld. AR are\nnot convincing vis-a-vis the fact that the assessee society is claiming\nincome exempt u/s 12A of I.T. Act.\n2.5\nThus, it is clear that assessee society is charging extra

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P PROJECT CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy. Cit V. M/S U.P. Projects Corporation Ltd. Range 6 Left Bank, Gomti Barrage Lucknow Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu3393F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 06 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 07 2022 O R D E R

TDS deducted by the bank on interest, which is Page 2 of 10 against the provision of section 198 and 199 of Income Tax Act. 2. Apropos Ground no.1, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had been deducting profit from work-in-progress and had been crediting it to Retention Reserve. The Assessing Officer added the Retention Reserve

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances of expenses\non non adherence of TDS provision under head TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

100% deduction available under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of income tax act, 1961. Its total income comes to nil and hence the return for the year total income at nil claiming TDS made under section 194H as commission on receiving has been filed. 8. That the authority below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of income (GP rate) - Assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 - Assessee-company was carrying out contract of construction of roads awarded by Government - Due to various discrepancies in books of account, Assessing Officer rejected same and estimated profit at 10 per cent of gross receipts - Tribunal relying

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

10 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has also failed to appreciate that, u/s 263 of the Act, an order of assessment cannot be set- aside to simply to make further enquiries and thereafter pass fresh order of assessment and as such, impugned order is contrary to law and hence, A.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers P. Ltd. unsustainable. The learned